Barber of Sevilla :: FFR Batch Submission
Queue | Open Batches
woker-X - Barber of Sevilla - ThePlasmas [8 / 10]
17th Official Tournament
PublicTokenPurchasedSecretEvents
Released
Blanket permission from ThePlasmas
This file was rejected in the Winter 2023 Seasonal Batch.
I have made considerable changes to the file as suggested in the batch notes.

✔️ The stepauthor has acknowledged the judges notes.

✔️ This chart has been marked as final and shouldn't receive any more changes.

Simfile Folder Name

Barber of Sevilla (woker-X)

Note Count

870

Chart Length

1:30

Average NPS

10.1913

Estimated Difficulty

65.48

First Note

0:05

Ending Note Delay

0:02

Hand Bias

x 10

Framers

0 - 0 1 - 0 2 - 7 3 - 3 4 - 6

Jumps

x 250

Hands

x 0

Quads

x 0

Color Jumps

x 0

Color Hands

x 0

Color Quads

x 0

Most notes in:

1/3 of a Second
6 - 18.00 nps 0.5 Seconds
9 - 18.00 nps 1 Second
18 - 18.00 nps 2 Seconds
34 - 17.00 nps 5 Seconds
74 - 14.80 nps 10 Seconds
132 - 13.20 nps 30 Seconds
359 - 11.97 nps 1 Minute
652 - 10.87 nps

Color Count

x 407 (46.78%)
x 285 (32.76%)
x 29 (3.33%)
x 135 (15.52%)
x 0 (0%)
x 6 (0.69%)
x 0 (0%)
x 0 (0%)
x 8 (0.92%)

Largest Note Gaps

1.33s1s0.33s0.33s0.33s0.33s0.33s0.33s
35
28
21
14
7
1: Tru
Posted at 2:16pm on October 26th, 2024

Barber of Sevilla (woker-X)
>Permission good (Blanket)
>Folder contents, metadata good
>Sync good

17.400 - reduce to single, compare 16.067
18.733 - 20.733 - (subjective) Feels anticlimactic to reduce the layering here. I would suggest reducing the layering 16.233 - 18.733 (possibly keeping notes like 16.733 and 17.067 as jumps) and buff up the layering in this section
24.483 - suggest move to 2 to better capture the descending drum fill
26.733 - (subjective) reduce to single, no crash or snare here
46.067 - suggest [23] or [24] for better PR contrast with .733 / 47.067
47.400 - this not being a [34] is a bit jarring, to fix can probably just mirror 47.400 - .733
48.400 - .733 - this jack is pretty spicy lol. Hardest part of the chart (imo). Would recommend (not require) changing to 2 minis for better balance
52.483 - suggest move to … idk, 4? Maybe 1? For similar descending drum fill idea as 24.483

No major complaints, this chart is nicely done. Suggesting just some minor touch ups. Cool to see the classical genre get some love, and cool to see an older stepartist come back to FFR.

Judge Score: 7.50 - Accepted

Tools: Convert Timestamp
2: jh05013
Posted at 11:45pm on January 4th, 2025

Permission good (blanket)
Sync slightly off? -2.060 works better for me. The notes below are given under the original (-2.067) offset.
Metadata good

- 9.400, 26.733: [13] for melody
- 17.400: single
- 24.400: jump?
- 37.983, 43.317: if they're meant for piano, these two aren't minijacks
- 38.067-39.400, 43.400-44.733: on a more subjective note, I actually think 16ths were fine. The piano is audibly faster than 12ths, and 16ths can work as a compromise between accuracy and playability.
- 1:24.733-1:26.067: might be spiky, but I don't see any other good way to chart it, so I guess this can pass

A highly memorable chart on a catchy song, easy accept.

Judge Score: 8.50 - Accepted

Tools: Convert Timestamp
3: woker-X
Posted at 11:14pm on January 8th, 2025

Changes based on the feedback from the judges. File should be final now.

A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
Note Count changed: 864 => 870
AVG NPS changed: 10.12105 => 10.19133
Hand Bias changed: 8 => 10

Tools: Convert Timestamp
4: woker-X
Posted at 11:43pm on January 8th, 2025

Tru
----------------
17.400 - reduce to single, compare 16.067
- Fixed. Good catch.
18.733 - 20.733 - (subjective) Feels anticlimactic to reduce the layering here. I would suggest reducing the layering 16.233 - 18.733 (possibly keeping notes like 16.733 and 17.067 as jumps) and buff up the layering in this section
- The general idea was that this section would get progressively harder when it repeats again later in the song, but you're right, it feels anticlimactic. I buffed the layering on this section.
24.483 - suggest move to 2 to better capture the descending drum fill
- I moved it to 4, it felt better imo.
26.733 - (subjective) reduce to single, no crash or snare here
- I decided to keep the jump, but using [13] and tweaked the pattern as jh05013 suggested.
46.067 - suggest [23] or [24] for better PR contrast with .733 / 47.067
- Good advice. Done.
47.400 - this not being a [34] is a bit jarring, to fix can probably just mirror 47.400 - .733
- Mirrored the pattern and changed 48.400 to [14] since it was using [34] as well and it felt repetitive.
48.400 - .733 - this jack is pretty spicy lol. Hardest part of the chart (imo). Would recommend (not require) changing to 2 minis for better balance
- I'll leave the jack as is, it's one of the memorable sections imo.
52.483 - suggest move to … idk, 4? Maybe 1? For similar descending drum fill idea as 24.483
- Moved it to 1. Thank you for all the notes!!

jh05013
----------------
9.400, 26.733: [13] for melody
- Great advice. It feels so much better.
17.400: single
- Fixed.
24.400: jump?
- I went with Tru's suggestion to better capture the descending drum fill.
37.983, 43.317: if they're meant for piano, these two aren't minijacks
- Good catch. Fixed.
38.067-39.400, 43.400-44.733: on a more subjective note, I actually think 16ths were fine. The piano is audibly faster than 12ths, and 16ths can work as a compromise between accuracy and playability.
- OMG, why did I use 12ths? I changed them to 192nds between 16ths and 24ths. I know they should be 24ths but it's not fun/playable if I want to keep them as jacks.
1:24.733-1:26.067: might be spiky, but I don't see any other good way to chart it, so I guess this can pass
- Keeping it as is. Thank you so much for the notes!!

Tools: Convert Timestamp